CODILLA SR. VS.

DE VENECIA
G.R. No. 150605, Dec. 10, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioner Codilla was a candidate for Representative of the 4 th legislative district of
Leyte against private respondent Ma. Victoria Locsin in the May 14, 2001 elections.
A disqualification case was filed against petitioner for indirect solicitation of votes in
violation of Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. However, the case was not acted upon until the
day of the elections. Petitioner was voted for and garnered the highest number of
votes while private respondent Locsin obtained the second highest number of votes.
Respondent Locsin moved for suspension of the petitioner’s proclamation which was
granted by the Comelec 2nd division by reason of “the seriousness of the
allegations.” On Jun. 14, 2001, the Comelec 2 nd division issued a resolution
disqualifying the petitioner and declaring the votes casted for him stray, and
ordered the immediate proclamation of private respondent Locsin. The following
day, Locsin was proclaimed; she took her oath of office on Jun. 18, 2001 and
assumed office on Jn. 30, 2001.
Petitioner seasonably filed with the Comelec en banc a motion for reconsideration
from the resolution suspending his proclamation ordering his disqualification. The
Comelec en banc reversed the decision and annulled the proclamation of
Respondent Locsin. Respondent Locsin contended that the COMELEC lost its
jurisdiction when she was proclaimed and that it is now the HRET which has the
jurisdiction being the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, return and
qualifications of its members.
ISSUE:
Whether the proclamation of respondent Locsin divested the Comelec en banc of
jurisdiction to review its validity.
RULING:
The validity of the respondent’s proclamation was a core issue in the motion for
reconsideration seasonably filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner timely filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of the 2 nd division of Comelec suspending his
proclamation and disqualifying him, the Comelec en banc was not divested of its
jurisdiction to review the validity of the said order of the 2 nd division. The order was
yet unenforceable as it has not attained finality; the timely filing of the motion for
reconsideration suspends its execution. It cannot, thus, be used as the basis for the
assumption in office of the respondent as the duly elected representative of the 4 th
legislative district of leyte.
To stress again, at the time of the proclamation of respondent Locsin, the
validity of the Resolution of the Comelec 2nd division was seasonably challenged by
the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration. The issue was still within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec en banc to resolve. Hence, the HRET cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter.

GUIAO VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-68056, JUL. 5, 1985

LEE VS. No. 4. Notwithstanding his written objection. assailing the action taken by the Board in refusing to issue the subpoenas for members of the Citizens Election Committee to testify in view of his objections to the elections returns. The case was dismissed by the Comelec division and was appealed by petitioner to the Comelec en banc but was denied and it upheld the validity of the proclamation of respondent Canlas. Dioneda objected to the inclusion of one of the returns on the grounds that no entries were . Under the law. threats. Petitioner had already filed with the Comelec a verified petition. he garnered 5th place and private respondent Canlas in the 4 th place. and on May 22. These two petitions are no less in the nature of an appeal from the Board’s dismissal of his written objections and were already duly resolved by the Comelec. To set aside the proclamation and allow the petitioner to appeal again to the COMELEC on the dismissal of his written objections and on the proclamation of respondent Canlas as the winning candidate would be but an exercise of redundancy. the candidates who landed in the 1 st to 4th places (including Canlas) were proclaimed. intimidation. 2003 FACTS: Petitioner Lee and private respondent Dioneda were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City in the May 14. petitioner was unable to substantiate his allegations and instead ask the Board of Canvassers to issue a subpoena to members of the Citizens Election Committee to testify in view of his objections to the election returns to which the Board denied.FACTS: Petitioner Guiao was one of the candidates for assemblyman in the province of Pampanga in the May 14. 1984 elections. 2001 elections. 1984 a petition for annulment of the proclamation of respondent Canlas contending that the proclamation was premature considering that he objected to the inclusion of some of the returns. the Comelec shall be sole judge and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. COMELEC G. Thus. petitioner filed with the Comelec an urgent petition to nullify the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers. JUL. to annul the proclamation of respondent Canlas. The petitioner’s remedy is to file an election protest. When his objection was heard. duress. dated May 18. After canvassing of the votes. ISSUE: Does petitioner still has the remedy before the Comelec after the winning candidates have been proclaimed? RULING: NO. 1984. 157004. Petitioner submitted to the Board of Canvassers his written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election returns from approximately 31 various voting centers of different municipalities on the grounds of incomplete. on May 18. During the canvassing. Another petition was later filed by him with the Comelec on May 22. The petition to annul the proclamation and to nullify the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers has now become moot. 1984.R. coercion. 1984. and falsified returns.

while the candidates of the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero. 31. the doctrine does not apply. Corollarily. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the questioned election return. LAGUMBAY VS. that said returns is statistically improbable. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to go beyond or behind election returns and investigate election irregularities in pre-proclamation controversy. In said returns. this petition. COMELEC G. Hence. therefore. The petition was granted and it ordered the constitution of new set of BOC and directed to prepare a new Statement of Votes for the position of mayor of Sorsogon City excluding the questioned return.” Where. Motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Lee was denied by the Comelec en banc. including petitioner Lee. No. before the Comelec 2 nd division a petition assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the questioned return and the annulment of the petitioner’s proclamation.made for the position of Congressman. the COMELEC issued an order denying to reject the 50 returns for senators coming from some of the municipalities of Mindanao. there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine. ISSUE: . The foregoing doctrine presupposes that the returns “appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face. the BOC proclaimed the winning candidates. and that LDP watchers were utilized to fill up election returns. JAN.R. Private respondent thus filed on May 23. On May 19. is that as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face. technical examination of voting paraphernalia involving analysis and comparison of voters’ signatures and thumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be expeditiously resolved without evidence of aliunde and examination of voluminous documents which take up much time and cause delay in defeat of the public policy underlying the summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies. and private respondent filed on the same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling. RULING: The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction. the BOC cannot look beyond or behind them to verify the allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of the votes. 2001. However. 1996 FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition before the COMELEC to reject the returns for senators of some precincts in Mindanao. L-25444. several entries having been omitted in the questioned election return. The Board of Canvassers ruled for the inclusion of said return. 2001. alleging among others. as in the case at bar. it showed therein that in each precinct the number of registered voters equalled the number of the ballots and the votes reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candidate of the Liberal Party.

with branches in every province. that all the electors of one precinct would. the Comelec may annul its proclamation. RULING: As a general rule. When the canvassing was finished.R. the party in power in these islands. and the systematic blanking out of opposing candidates. Iloilo in the elections held on May 8. RULING: Yes.” The Court opined that the election result to said precincts as reported. vote for all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party. Such extraordinary coincidence was quite impossible to believe. was utterly improbable and clearly incredible. 2004 FACTS: . Democrito who garnered 62 more votes than Castramayor. in the ordinary course of things. No. “where there exists uniformity of tallies in favour of candidates belonging to one party. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC losses jurisdiction to annul the proclamation of Castramayor. the Comelec losses its jurisdiction after proclamation. NOV. OCAMPO VS. it was discovered that Castramayor was not the number eight winner but it was certain Nilda C. COMELEC G. 1995. 23. According to the Supreme Court.Whether or not the questioned returns is statistically improbable. it admits exception. winners were proclaimed including Castramayor who landed in the eight place. without giving a single vote to one of the eight candidates of the Nacionalista Party. like any other rules. However. No. After the votes had been cast. 158466. Hence. For it is not likely. but if the proclamation is based on erroneous tabulation. therefore.R. CASTRAMAYOR VS. in previous years. However. and was. the election returns are. as one man. the Municipal Board of Canvassers began to canvass the ERs from the different precincts in the municipality. JUN. HRET AND CRESPO G. 120426. knowing that the Nacionalista Party had and has a nationwide organization. when the Chairman of the canvassing board rechecked the totals in the Statement of Votes the following day. The Comelec losses jurisdiction only if the proclamation is valid. 15. 1995 FACTS: Petitioner was a candidate for a seat in the eight-member Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Calinog. the proclamation is void and thus no proclamation at all to speak of. obviously manufactured.

petitioner filed a motion to declare him as the duly elected Congressman who garnered the highest number of votes among the remaining qualified candidates. Petitioner went to the COMELEC to question the canvass of the election returns. No. 1986. and petitioner filed an election protest before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Respondent Crespo was proclaimed the duly elected representative in the district. his complaint was dismissed and private respondent was proclaimed. On May 13. L-68379-81. private respondent appeared to be winner. on Feb. After election day. RULING: No. including private respondent. Whether the margin is ten or ten thousand. petitioner was gunned down in cold blood and in broad day light. 2003. 22. There were seven suspects. to proclaim him as the duly elected representative in the stead of protestee would be anathema to the most basic precepts of republicanism and democracy as enshrined within our Constitution. 2001 elections. 12. Jurisprudence has long established the doctrine that a second placer cannot be proclaimed the first among the remaining qualified candidates. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Ocampo. The solicitor general moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that as a result of supervening events it has become moot and academic. ISSUE: . Petitioner then went to the Supreme Court. 11. The fact the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily give the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes the right to be declared the winner of the elective office. 2003. In effect. On Mar. be proclaimed as the winner.R. the second placer. however. 1986 FACTS: Petitioner Javier and private respondent Pacificador were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 14. 6. SEP. but while his case was still being considered by the Court. Thus. it still remains that protestant did not receive the mandate of the majority during the elections. we would be advocating as massive disenfranchisement of the majority of the voters of the 6th district of Manila.Petitioner Ocampo and private respondent Crespo were candidates for Representative of the 6th District of Manila in the May 14. COMELEC G. On Mar. 1984 elections. or the night before the election day. the supporters of petitioner Javier were allegedly ambushed and killed by the men of private respondent. It is of no moment that there is only a margin of 768 votes between protestant and protestee. the HRET issued resolutions declaring private respondent “ineligible for the office of Representative of 6 th District of Manila for lack of residence in the district” and ordering him to vacate his office. JAVIER VS.

1998. Angpin to hold office in the House of Representatives.E. however. RULING: No. claiming that the latter was declared ineligible to assume or hold office as member of the house of Representatives and for the candidate and for the candidate who received the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates to be proclaimed the winner. After receiving a copy of the aforesaid resolution.000. RULING: Yes. a defeated candidate for president who filed an election protest and ran for senator should be deemed to have abandoned the protest.000. respondent was declared the duly elected president and thereby assumed office. HRET G. Case No. 134792. The death of the protestant in an election contest does not automatically warrants the dismissal of his case because an election contest is imbued with public interest and should be pursued to its final conclusions to determine the bona fide winner. the HRET issued a resolution dismissing the petition for quo warranto for failure to pay the P5. However.00 filing fee. 1999 FACTS: On May 29. within the prescribed ten day period from respondent Harry Angping’s proclamation as duly elected representative for the 3 rd District of Manila. RAMOS P. petitioners. AL. On June 10. 1996 FACTS: Petitioner Defensor-Santiago and private respondent Ramos were candidates for president in the May 11. all duly registered voters in the district. 001. petitioner run for senator and won a seat in the subsequent midterm elections in 1995 and had assumed office. While her case was still pending.R. 13. Petitioner questioned the eligibility of Cong. GARCIA ET. petitioner filed an election contest grounded on irregularities during the election day.Whether or not the death of the protestant in an election contest warrants the dismissal of the case. VS.T. 1992 elections.00 cash deposit required by its Rules. Upon filing of the their petition. filed a petition for quo warranto before the HRET against respondent. 12. AUG. 1998. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. In said elections. petitioners paid the . petitioners duly paid the required P5. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s assumption of office as senator warrants the dismissal of her case in the PET. No. FEB.

Petitioner who garnered the second highest number of votes. No.00 cash deposit in addition to filing fees for quo warranto cases. in view of Rule 32 of the 1998 HRET Rules which required a P5. Correlatively. COMELEC G. MALIKSI VS. Private respondent was declared by the board of canvassers as the winner. are duty bound to know and are expected to properly comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the Tribunal without being formally ordered to do so. had been unwarranted because there was no proof that the integrity of the paper ballot had not been preserved.R. denied. He argued that the resort to the printouts of the ballot images. Angping to hold office as a Member of the House of Representatives.P5. the observance of the HRET Rules of Procedure must be taken seriously if they are to attain their objective. 11.000.e. without giving notice to the parties. After the recount. . if true. Hence. filed with the RTC an election protest grounded on the alleged irregularities. to be more precise. In view of the delicate nature and importance of this charge. this petition. alleging that he had been denied his right to due process because he had not been notified of the decryption proceedings. party litigants appearing before the HRET or. 2013 FACTS: Petitioner Maliksi and private respondent Homer Saquilayan were candidates for mayor in Imus. and he was installed as Mayor. however. notwithstanding that petitioner rectified payment thereof? RULING: Yes. Maliksi file a motion for reconsideration. not being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The Comelec en banc denied his motion for reconsideration. which were secondary evidence. decided to recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the C cards. 203302. APR. ISSUE: May a petition for quo warranto before the HRET be summarily dismissed for failure to pay cash deposit. On appeal. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was. The RTC held a revision of the votes. which. 1998 and attached the corresponding receipt to the motion for reconsideration they filed with the HRET on the same day. the RTC granted Maliksi’s motion for execution pending appeal. the Comelec 1st division..00 cash deposit on June 26. In the meanwhile. and based on the results of the revision declared petitioner as the duly elected mayor and ordered private respondent to vacate the office. Imperative justice requires the proper observance of technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper and swift dispensation. their lawyers. i. This is a serious charge. “The petition for quo warranto attacks the ineligibility of Cong. Cavite in the May 2010 automated elections. renders him disqualified from such office.000. the Comelec 1st division nullified the decision of the RTC and declared respondent Saquilayan as the duly elected Mayor. They cannot righteously impute abuse of discretion to the Tribunal if by reason of the non-observance of those requirements it decides to dismiss their petition. the speedy and orderly determination of the true will of the electorate.

In short. as defined by Sec. the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of the voter’s will. RULING: The images of the abllots are elecgtronic documents that are regarded as the equivalents of the original official ballots theselves. as scanned and recorded by the PCOS. 2(3) of RA 9369. the picture images of the ballots are to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised.ISSUE: Whether or not ballot images are secondary evidence as against the official ballot. thus may be used for purpose of revision of votes in an electoral protest. Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their picture images. In Vinzons-chato v. HRET. the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and. As such. and the Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. the Court held that “the picture images of theabloots.” That the two documents – the official ballot and its picture image – are considered “original documents” simply means that both of them are given equal probative weight. one is not considered as weightier than the other. are likewise ‘official ballots’ that faithfully caputure in electronic form the votes cast by the voter. the COMELEC. when either is presented as evidence. . In that regard. But this juridical entity does not authorize the courts.